Answer to a stoopid Liberal chain-letter

This was sent to me right before the election last November. I posted it on My$pace back then, and am re-posting it now just because... I don't need a reason! You're not the boss of me!

His words begin with a >. Mine follow.


His letter begins:
> I am ready to start building a wall.



What, like the Iron Curtain? It will be a wall to keep you peasants in, not free people out.




> Dear Red States:
>If you manage to steal this election, too, we've decided we're leaving. We
>intend to form our own country and we are taking the other Blue States with
>us. In case you aren't aware, this includes California, Hawaii, Oregon,
>Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and the entire
>Northeast. We believe this split will be beneficial to the nation and,
>especially, to the people of the new country of New California.



I emphatically support your decision to form your own country, however, WHERE you are able to do it is not up to you. How do you intend to "take" other blue states with you? How can you believe you can "Take" anything when you all have given up on the Second Amendment and have no weapons or the skills to use them? And just because all of Californias 55 electoral votes will go to the winner of the popular vote, probably Obama, does not mean all of California supports Obama or any of his crazy leftist ideas. I estimate a full 45% of California voters will support McCain. What are you going to do with them? Kill them, like Ayers and his buddies wanted to do? Bring it on...Unlike you, we *have* guns, and we know how to use them, and using them in that manner will be EXACTLY what the Founding Fathers had in mind.




> To sum up briefly: You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the former slave
>States. We get stem cell research and the best beaches. We get the Statue
>of Liberty. You get Dollywood.



You have stem cell research now. What you don't have is tax-payer funded EMBRYONIC stem cell research. If there was ANY hope of embryonic stem cells having scientific benefits the free market would be all over it. As it is, it is a dead end and most researchers have moved on to more-hopeful umbilical, nasal, adult, etc. stem cell research. The only reason to spend taxpayer money on embryonic stem cell research is so you can de-sensitize Americans about harvesting human embryos, fertilized zygotes, and therefore HUMAN BEINGS! And what good will the Statue of Liberty do for a society that has eradicated individual Liberty? You'll just have to melt it down so no-one gets reminded how good they had it before they tried to vote themselves into prosperity.


> We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom.



What makes you think these businesses will stay in your communist Utopia? Bill Gates wants a country that has one foot in capitalism and one foot in socialism. He would chooses capitalism every time, if he had to choose one or the other. So would 99% of other businesses.



> We get Harvard. You get Ol' Miss.



You can have Harvard...Nobody learns anything of value there anyway.



> We get 85% of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs. You get Alabama.



Again...venture capital will abandon you so fast the giant sucking sound will blow out your incense.



> We get two-thirds of the tax revenue. You get to make the Red States pay their fair share.



What tax revenue? No-one will be working.
Who would bother what with all the free health care, student tuition, government cheese, and tax credits you are promising them?


> Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22% lower than the Christian
>Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single moms.



Huh? Source, please?


> Please be aware that Nuevo California will be pro-choice and anti-war.
>We're going to want all of our citizens back from Iraq, at once. If you need
>people to fight, ask your Evangelicals. They have kids they're apparently
>willing to send to their deaths for no purpose and they don't care if you don't
>show pictures of their children's caskets coming home. We do wish you
>success in Iraq and hope that the WMDs turn up. We're not willing to spend
>our resources in Bush's quagmire.



Good luck keeping all those Mexicans/Guatemalans/Nicaraguans/etc. happy. They will take California from you faster than you can say AZTLAN.



> With the Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80% of the
>country's fresh water, more than 90% of the pineapple and lettuce, 92% of
>the nation's fresh fruit, 95% of America's quality wines, 90% of all cheese,
>90% of the high tech industry, 95% of the corn and soybean crop (thanks Iowa!),
> most of the U.S low-sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and
>condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools, plus Stanford, Cal, UCLA, Cal
>Tech and MIT.



What good will all that be for you unless you start FORCING PEOPLE to harvest it all.
Do you think your new Socialist Utopian government will allow you all to just hang out at coffee bars and be students-for-life and such? You will be put to work. Just like in Russia, Cuba, and China. Harvesting food, shoveling shit, making Soylent Green, etc.


> With the Red States, on the other hand, you will have to cope with 88% of
>all obese Americans (and their projected health care costs), 92% of all U.S.
>mosquitoes, nearly 100% of the tornadoes, 90% of the hurricanes, 99% of
>all Southern Baptists, virtually 100% of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh,
>Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of Georgia.


Blah, blah, blah...

>We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you.


You can have Hollywood. Yosemite will burn down because you won't allow reasonable forest management in your "pristine" environment.



> Additionally, 38% of those in the Red States believe Jonah was actually
>swallowed by a whale, 62% believe life is sacred, unless we're discussing
>the war, the death penalty or gun laws, 44% say that evolution is only a
>theory, 53% that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and 61% of you crazy
>bastards believe you are people with higher morals than us Lefties.



Blah, blah,blah, evolution *is* a theory, The war was declared on "terror" not on the perpetrators of 911, blah, blah, with no foundation for the idea of morality, it's just a word, and as such able to be re-defined to mean whatever you want it to mean. Which is to say, without belief in god, there can be no morality.


> Finally, we're taking the good pot, too. You can have that dirt weed they
>grow in Mexico.



I'll grow my own.



> Go to hell you inbred fearmongers,
> The blue states



First of all, you don't believe in hell. Secondly, if there is a hell, I don't want you to go there. Just leave me alone. Again, why the hostility? Why the vengefulness? Why does my desire to have the government be less intrusive cause you soooooooooo much anxiety? I want you to be able to pursue your own happiness as lax or rugged as you desire. You want me to go to hell because I don't want you to take my money (taxes) to pay for your hare-brained schemes. Where's the hate? On your side...

Note all the work that you people do to try to measure who gets what.
Why are Liberals always so concerned with who gets what? Could it be because their entire philosophy is based on envy? The idea of parting company has been brought up many times, beginning with Ayn Rand back in the 1950's. Freestateproject. org is in the process of doing this right now in New Hampshire. The difference is, NO ONE at the free state project has spent one second talking about "hahah, look at what we got and look at what you got!" We just want to be left alone. That's it. No envy, no jealousy, no vindictiveness, no venegence.


Now, I know this was probably some sort of attempt to bring levity at the last minute, but for humor to work, there must be an element of truth; every comedian will tell you this. All this does is illustrate how badly thought-out liberalism is as a whole. It's bat-shit crazy at best and downright evil at it's worst.


And now I'm even madder because it's forcing me to do something I said I wouldn't do: Vote for John McCain as the lesser of two evils.


Steve Casas



--
He who would give up essential Liberty for temporary Security deserves neither.

He asked for it!

Ok... so an old friend just emailed me a question. I have never been one to tip-toe about and sugarcoat ANYTHING, so he got the hook, line, and sinker...


*******************************************
Here was his original question:
*******************************************

Tell me how this balances out in your view. Some days I can make 2000 a day- for example working a 12 hour day. Some times as much as 3000 or more if I really use every billable service possible in a day sometimes less like 1500. I don't work physically as hard as you do using your brain additionally to measure add ect, I use report writing, counseling, heavy court work ect, have a two year degree, almost a 4. Business is good due to a GOVERNMENT grant serving American Indians.

In a Socialists view, there would be a redistribution of wealth. Is not everyone deserving of their basic needs being met? Why shouldn't I pay more to help balance what others get less of working as hard as I do? Honestly I struggle with charging 150 and hour for a service and paying someone 15 - 30 an hour to provide it. I am about to hire, but haven't. I realize I have overhead, and there is a trickle down notion, but still! I am making more money than i ever thought imaginable when i started. What are your thoughts? With your wisdom and experience, I bet you could open your own business!


*******************************************
So here was my reply:
*******************************************


Well, I have no idea exactly what it is that you do... but I'm gonna assume... something to do with social welfare of Indians and Eskimo's... maybe health billing, civil law, counseling, etc...

And I'll bet that the $2000-$3000 per day that you make comes from money that these poor, needy, people get from the government. Couldn't you live well with $400 per day? Why don't you charge less? Those poor people could definitely use the money elsewhere! Why don't you give most of it to charity? Why do you want the government to take more of it from you when you could give it freely wherever YOU thought it would do the most good? And why is the government giving MY money to Indians? What did I ever do to them? My kids need shoes but the government just took $160 out of my $1500 two-week paycheck! And what do I get for it? Secure borders and membership in a PONZI scheme (Social Security)?

So...if this is true...in my view, there is an imbalance going on here, and government is the problem. The money you are making is due to the government redistributing wealth to Indians and Eskimo's...remember, the government has no money of it's own except what it can take from taxpayers. So I say that what you are doing is a DRAIN on the system because you produce nothing except helping the government spend what they have taken from productive citizens like me, and getting paid more than me in the process.

Everyone is NOT deserving of having their basic needs met! Where does it say that? I can meet my own needs, thank you, as long as the government doesn't stand in the way. I also have the option of helping my fellow man if I feel like it.... charity is and has always been better at helping the unfortunate than government. And those Indians/Eskimo's would have been better off if we hadn't enabled their apathetic decline into moral and economic poverty by feeding them at the trough of welfare and getting them addicted to it for a hundred years.

You say, " Why shouldn't I pay more to help balance what others get less of working as hard as I do?" I say you shouldn't be getting *any* money to do what you do... you should be providing a real service to people; making shoes, baking bread, building homes, managing property, running a restaurant, etc. Government jobs (and all the secondary jobs that support them) created by government spending of productive taxpayer money is exactly what has to get cut. California just yesterday refused to let the governor try to squeeze any more money from taxpayers, now or in the future, and now all he is left with is a scalpel to start cutting his budget. And it is jobs like yours that will wither and die in this state. And economic health will be the result.

(edit: Unemployed state workers, and all of their fellow leeches will drag down the economy and prolong the recovery until they finally are forced to start producing like the rest of us. And of course they'll piss and moan the whole time about how capitalism failed and more government intervention is needed. Why does government only grow and never shrink? Even under Reagan it grew!)

If I am wrong about what you do...sorry. Consider it a rant at someone else who does do that. But if I am right... you are one of many ticks on a dog and at some point, with too many ticks, the dog will die. Then where will you be? I, and many other Americans like me, are like the insecticide. We only want the dog to be healthy and you gotta go.

You asked... at a real bad time, too. I'm in a foul mood....

*******************************************
Then... later I sent him this:
*******************************************


Also... I'm going to post this...including your question. I will edit out a few things so no-one will know it was you who asked, ok? Also, I will not tell anyone who may ask who it was... I realize that I came off angry and that I assumed a lot. But I just looked at your info page and I think I was close enough.

There is half a nation of people like me here and we thrive without government; you and the other half will starve without it. My only advice to you is to find a job that gives people service for value. Anything else is wasteful and cancerous and cannot survive the coming revolution.

Friday's, inexperienced leaders, and the general balance of the Universe

Being educated and experienced in electronics, I have often used my understanding of Electricity and the forces of Nature in making analogies to everyday behavior/politics and general societal motion. See, Generating electricity is really just using physical force to knock electrons loose from the atoms they were bound to. Most people think it is these electrons we are putting to use, however this is not the case. It is the atom from which we have enticed the electron that is the key to electricity. This atom, and all others in the Universe, was forged in the million-degree fires of the hottest stars and supernovae explosions, with all its constituent parts in the quantity and order required to make it stable. Knock a piece off and it will take what it needs from the next atom, which leaves that atom in need and the process repeats until the Universe is able to re-balance itself. It is this desperate "need" that the atom experiences, a need which didn't exist before, that enables it, gives it the power, to steal what it needs from an adjacent atom that was previously in perfect balance. And it is these atoms in a state of "need" that we enslave and make to do all sorts of demeaning tasks before they are finally fulfilled and become at one with the Universe again, in their natural state.

This happens in nature a lot, all by itself. But the Universe always re-balances. Different densities of air rushing past each other (wind) knock electrons loose. Lightning is just the result of the Universe balancing itself out. We have discovered ways of enhancing this natural action and putting it to use. If you collect enough of these ionized atoms and store them where they are prevented from re-combining, you can later cause a controlled re-combination in your flashlight.

There is, as of yet, no negative consequences to our enslavement of these ionized atoms, because we always allow them to re-balance. It is un-natural that we force an imbalance, but it is natural for the Universe to bring about balance.

Which brings me to the point: People in need can also be enslaved and made to do all kinds of demeaning things. They can be made to do positive things, too, I suppose, but only if you believe the end justifies the means. I say that anything accomplished by means of enslavement and force can never be positive. When I look at the pyramids in Egypt, I see hundreds of thousands of people forced to work their entire lives for the self-aggrandizement of one man. It doesn't matter that they built something so awesome that it still inspires wonder some 4500 years later.
Sure, having more high school graduates (positive end) may be achieved by lowering the standards of commencement (means), but that only sends a person out into the world thinking he/she is smarter than they really are and essentially sets them up for heartbreaking failure!
Yes, more people can own homes (positive end) if you lower the requirements of obtaining a loan (a means risky to banking structure), but does that justify putting the entire WORLD at the brink of economic collapse? (For the record, the democrats said it was worth the risk and the Republicans said it was not. Look it up; Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, etc.)

True, living in a society that is free from racial discrimination (positive ends) might be realized if there were more black college grads and CEO's and even presidents (by means of affirmative action, admissions quotas, and mainstream media dereliction of duty during election '08) but again it's un-natural and risky to put the lives and fortunes of a whole nation in the palms of any but the best, brightest, most capable and tested hands.

It is natural for people to trade goods and to decide on rules in the marketplace. It is un-natural to use force to fudge those rules in order to influence trade based on some imaginary ideal.
It is natural for the best and brightest to succeed. It is un-natural to not have any "best" or "brightest" because someone might feel bad if they don't qualify. We are not all equal. Get over it.

It is natural to elect leaders based on personal experience and capability, and trustworthiness. It is un-natural to fake experience, capability and trustworthiness in order to elect a certain leader because if you do, you will feel "hopeful" and the world will be "changed." You have set him up for failure. There are consequences. You cannot vote for it to always be Friday.

There is a natural order to the Universe. We humans have always tried to understand it so that we may be at one with it. Many popular philosophies through the years have arisen, some fighting it, some flowing with it. Libertarianism seeks to accept it at face value. It seems to me that Liberalism (Socialism) refuses to accept it and will fight it to the death. Socialism is force; Libertarianism is freedom from force.

It all makes me wonder if the Liberals are telling us what their real goal is. Is it equality or do they really just want to tear the world apart because its' natural order is repugnant to them. Because that is exactly what they are doing; tearing the world apart. And when it re-balances itself, they will still have the audacity to reject the order. This means they have put themselves in a state of perpetual conflict with the Universe.

It's a good thing the Universe doesn't take it personal that we have been knocking its' atoms about, willy-nilly, for about 200 years now. Or does it?

Liberal Self-Conflict or Subterfuge?

Liberal Self-Conflict or Subterfuge?

Here’s just three examples of liberal self-conflict I referred to in my last post.

Stem-cell research and baby bottles:

Not one federally-funded study, and there has been many, has shown BPA to be harmful in the doses relevant to baby/water bottles. But still they protest. David Fenton, George Soros, and the trial lawyers (big democrat donators) are foaming at the mouth trying to get it banned and legislation passed. However...when it comes to embryonic stem-cell research, those same people will say that federally funded studies are needed because the private research that is, and had for years, been ongoing has gradually moved on to more promising stem cells not harvested from living human embryos. Do they trust federally funded research in the second case but not in the first? Or is there something more devious going on?

Here's the subterfuge: in the first case, they are protecting trial lawyers' ability to rake in multi-million dollar settlements from bottle manufacturers, and in the second case they really just want to destroy Judeo-Christian morality regarding the sanctity of human life.

The whole issue regarding stem cell research is that the government won’t (and shouldn’t) provide taxpayer dollars for research on live embryos because many, myself included, believe those are human beings by definition and we don’t, and shouldn’t, experiment on them. That doesn’t mean that research isn’t being done on them. It is. All over the place by privately funded corporations. But most researchers have moved on to other types of stem cells that don’t require destroying human life because embryonic stem cells are unstable. Dumb liberals believe that the government is discriminating and catering to the right-to-life movement and that Superman could have walked again. Smart liberals know that really it is an attempt to prepare society for organ harvesting, euthanasia, population control (forced abortions) and general SLAVERY! Smart liberals love dumb liberals.

Darwinism:

Darwin theorized that those species whose actions/instincts/mutations gave them advantage naturally thrived and those species whose actions/instincts/mutations were disadvantageous became extinct. Thus we, and all other extant species, are the survivors. I don't have a problem with that. But I am the one who included ACTIONS and INSTINCTS along with mutations above. And I say that actions, meaning acquired/learned behavior, becoming instinct in later generations, is a much more important factor in survival than radical genetic mutation (macro-evolution) which hasn't even been proven to have happened. Yes, the sea otter couldn't have learned to use rocks to smash open oysters without first evolving opposable thumbs, but did the otter evolve opposable thumbs? Again...not proven.

So this brings us to the hypocrisy: Humans that have evolved actions/instincts/mutations that are disadvantageous to their survival should be allowed to become extinct. I include homosexuals, drug abusers, promiscuous sex abusers, murderers, and people that think the planet is over-populated. All these groups have or should have made decisions that make them less able to pro-create and therefore survive, some by their own self-exclusion/destruction and others by violating the laws of society. Allowing their extinction isn't mean or callous, it's their choice. So who is it that fights against it? Liberals...every time. They want homosexuals to have kids, adopt, marry so they can have a legitimate legacy, etc. They want to give drug users clean needles and therefore prolong their self-destruction. They repeatedly stand in the way of societal cleansing of people with un-natural sexual desires (rapists, pedophiles, zoophiles, etc.), murderers, traitors, etc. Liberals want poor people to have fewer kids but still vote for liberals, so they give them welfare, free abortions and ban DDT so more of their children will die (The U.N. says malaria kills one child every 30 seconds) but at least vultures will thrive! (link) If you think the world is over-populated, then don’t have kids! There are people that don’t think so; let them be. Only narrow-minded city folk (who voted for Obama by wide margins) think the world is overpopulated.

This doesn't mean I don't want these humans that have chosen unhealthy lifestyles to be cared for. I do. There are people that want to care for them. The free market will provide. Charitable organizations will provide. Oh, wait; Obama’s taking away their livelihood, too. There are also people that don't want to be cared for. But don't pretend that your choices haven't reduced your ability to survive. This is what Judeo-Christian morality has given the human race: a things-to-do list to increase your survivability. And what is the result? After some 3500 years of implementation, the greatest society on the face of the earth...ever! An entire nation of free people. Free to pursue their own happiness, by their own definition. Free to sink or swim. Free to succeed or fail, languish or thrive, dally or hustle. Perish or survive.

Home ownership:

Anyone in the business of loaning money will tell you that someone who isn’t able to obtain gainful employment AND save money is a risky prospect. Anyone involved in risky prospects better be ready to lose it all. Who the HELL wants to live wondering if he’s going to lose it all tomorrow? This is why banks require sizable down-payments; so they know that you are able to save and that you are “in it” with the bank and that your life is on the line too. It makes the bank feel better about loaning you money and might get you a better interest rate. The current credit system is a way of discerning who is and is not able to save and make payments.

Owning a home is the single best thing one can do to ensure financial well-being and future happiness for one’s family. So, increasing the percentage of home-ownership would be a good thing, right? Wrong! This is putting the cart before the horse. What needs to happen is to encourage SAVING. Hard work and saving your money. These are laws of human behavior that are as obvious to an uneducated man today as they were 4000 years ago! But again, liberals want to re-write basic human behavior by forcing banks to loan money to risky borrowers by telling lenders that the government will bail them out if the loans are defaulted on. How does this make a person more able to make house payments? And what happens when they default by the millions when there’s a hiccup in the economic health of the country? We all suffer. All of us.

Another case of liberals being mad about the fact that Wednesday comes after Tuesday. We don’t write the Laws of Human Behavior; we just discover them. Liberals want to change them. Not their own behavior, just that of others. They are in conflict with basic human nature.

Ways to encourage saving:

· Get rid of the Capital gains tax. Any time you make more than just what you need to survive (wages) the government taxes it at a higher rate. What was it that you were going to save if not the money you earned above and beyond that which you needed to survive?

· Cut income taxes or, even better, switch to a national sales tax. Stop taking so much of our discretionary money and we will at least have the option to save. With a national sales tax, the less you consume, the more discretionary dollars you will have and maybe you’ll save some or pay down your mortgage (which is a form of saving in itself).

Ways to discourage saving:

· Inflating the money supply artificially (by deficit spending, which is the same as just printing more money) discourages saving by making the money you save worth less than it was when you earned it. This has been going on for thousands of years, however never at the rate it is now with Obama at the helm. John Maynard Keynes was WRONG and his economic theories were just a devious means of enslaving an entire nation to debt! Look it up.

· Raise Capital gains taxes. No-brainer.

· Give hope for the future. If the future looks awesome, who wouldn’t want to be there? When the government continues to pursue economic policies that are clearly poisonous to the educated and give rise to uncertainty among the un-educated, why would anyone suffer now by saving when the future promises even more suffering? The policies I speak of are social security (ponzi scheme that must implode under its own weight), skyrocketing national debt, and erosion of basic human rights; free speech, self defense (2^nd amendment), right to life, rights of parents, property rights, etc.

So next election remember who encourages saving and who discourages it.

Also, it is said that a neurotic believes that 2+2=5. A psychotic knows that 2+2=4, but he's mad about it. Anyone living in conflict with basic human nature is either psychotic or trying to pull the wool over your eyes. Neither should be elected to any kind of office.

More examples of liberal self-conflict to come. Happy Easter! And remember, today is the day that God led by example to teach us that we should sacrifice and save; not for this world, but the next.

Musical influences

I pretty much gravitate toward guitar-orientated music, being a player myself. I've been having an ongoing debate with my dad about our respective top 5 lists in the category of guitar players. My list goes:

1 Jimi Hendrix

2 Carlos Santana

3 Jerry Garcia

4 Trey Anastasio

5 Steve Stevens (Billy Idol guitarist)

Let me clarify: This is my greatest SOLOIST list. There are other categories in which these guys might not even appear. I am not one of those hippie myopes that can't see outside their hippy world. I am not engaging in "name dropping" by including Steve Stevens. I almost put David Gilmour in number 5. But Steve has been a huge influence on me, even though it's not apparent, even to me sometimes. One might argue Gilmour is a better soloist, though.

A glaring omission has been brought to my attention: Eddie Van Halen. This is *my* top 5 list , and he's not on it. He is however on my top 15 list.

As far as other music is concerned, I LOVE Alicia Keys, Norah Jones, and Sade. And Kylie Minogue...maybe it's her butt, I'm still not sure. There really isn't much going on in the male music department that is interesting to me. Punk is a waste of time, Rap isn't music, and hip-hop is WAAAAAAY too self indulgent. R&B *CAN* be interesting. Like Anita Baker and the jazzier stuff. Jazz (like Miles, Coltrane, etc.) is like a bunch of geniuses sitting around trying to NOT make sense. There are snippits that come out of it that are worth exploring, and the general idea of musical freedom is admirable, but, what is it from which you want to be free? Melody? Harmony? Repetition? These are among the fundaments of music without which you are left with chaos.

Punk was a defiant movement away from corporate pop and social norms. Ok, I understand. But then they go and write a bunch of formulaic songs using the same general patterns found in pop. All they got away from was the musicianship.

Rap...yeah...see, there is *NOTHING* musical about it. For the most part, it's ripped off music that some self-important ego-maniac is using to tell everyone how up-and-coming he is. The music is just a back-drop for his/her rantings and bitch-mongering. It ought to be illegal to give these rappers millions of dollars. It certainly is dangerous. A poor idiot is relatively harmless. A rich idiot is a menace. That was absurd, about "it ought to be illegal", I know; They earned the money. But they earned it by appealing to the lowest of human desires. What that says about the mindset of these kids (and adults) that buy all those Rap records is paramount. Is this what we have to look forward to? Future leaders that grew up listening to rap? We already have to listen to P-diddy's political wisdom. Then it will be the idiots who listened to him giving their "wisdom". I'm not saying anything should be done about it. I *AM* a Libertarian, after all. Rap wouldn't survive long if people had their heads out of their respective asses. The only good thing about it is it's beneficial to the working class because we build their mansions, sell them their cars, and clothes, and bling, and other forms of trickle-down economics.

I'm gonna quit now, lest this turn into a commentary on the social decay of western civilization as we know it....

Interview

Since I almost got carpal tunnel syndrome from writing it, I thought I would post it for anyone who cares...

This is an interview my brother-in-law did for a school project:

Troy: What or who inspired you to be a musician?
Steve: Well, primarily, it was my dad. Some of my first memories are of my dad playing guitar. The songs he played (and still plays exactly the same) are etched in my mind and elicit an almost primal, instinctual response in me. Feelings of safety, comfort, and childlike love all spring up as if I was young again.
Then, when I was seven and started liking my own music, I remember hearing Carlos Santana the first time. The way he was able to wrench out different emotions with a single note, almost forcing you to dance with the raw, native rhythm...anyways, I realized the power a musician could have and the ecstacy the musician and audience could share and I wanted that for myself. And I could see that it was possible because here was my dad, someone real, who could do that, albeit on a smaller scale, so I knew I could do it too.

Troy: At what age did you start playing and what instrument?
Steve: I believe I was 8 when I first started fiddling around with an electric guitar that my uncle gave my dad. I really wasn't interested in the acoustic guitars that my dad had, mainly because the rock stars that I loved (Santana, Fleetwood Mac, Wings) used electric guitars. So when he brought that home, I pretty much slept with it. By the time I was 10 I could play a few simple songs and at 12 I was copying solos from every song I could.

Troy: What kind of instruments do you play and which one do you enjoy
playing the most?
Steve: In elementary school I played the trumpet and trombone and in middle school I swiched to drums, all the while playing guitar at home. I played drums in the marching band up through 10th grade and drum kit in 9th and 10th grade, as well as other percussion instruments. But the whole time I was playing guitar at home. In 10th grade I was accepted into the Stage Band class and for the first time got to play guitar with other people. I dropped drumming and haven't really played drums much since. But I learned about the structure of music in general and the role of melody from playing trumpet and trombone and from percussion the ultimately important role of rhythm. All this has helped me in playing guitar. I also enjoy bass guitar, congas, and singing (is that an instrument?)

Troy: Do you have a favorite type of music Jazz, Rock, Pop, R&B, etc…? Who is your favorite artist or group?
Steve:I would have to say that I love rock most. I have a natural affinity for guitar-oriented music, which eliminates most classical musical. There are areas of Jazz that I like: cool jazz, R&B-style jazz, Brazillian jazz. I love pop, as long as it's real music played by real musicians using real instruments. I will name a few of my favorites in a few categories:

Jam Bands:
Phish, Grateful Dead, Spin Doctors, Allman Brothers

R&B:
Anita Baker, Alicia Keys, Mariah Carey (the early stuff), Aretha Franklin, Marvin Gaye

Jazz:
Joao Gilberto, Antonio Carlos Jobim, Stan Getz, Miles, Coltrane, Django Reinhart

Rock:
Billy Idol, Eagles, Jackson Brown, Iron Maiden, Pearl Jam, U2, the Police, Rush, Santana, The Cars, Pink Floyd, Bob Marley....

Troy: Did playing an instrument come easy for you? Did you have to
discipline yourself to practice or did you look forward to making time for
practice? How often do you practice?
Steve: See, practice is like pulling teeth. I used to play every waking minute until about 13, which is when I discovered girls. But I wouldn't call it practice, it was more like, "what *can't* I do?" then I would try to do it over and over again until my hand went numb and then I usually found that, a few days later, I could do it. Nowadays, I do have to discipline myself to practice, and I don't do it nearly as much as I should. I used to watch tv with my guitar in hand, running up and down the neck in different scales. I can't do that now because I end up yelling at my daughter for tweaking the tuning machines and then my wife is mad at me. Also, the desire to play only comes when I'm feeling good about life and like I accomplished something; usually Friday after getting paid and before the weekend. I find that I have the best time when I'm alone in the house so I can really turn it up without worrying about my daughters' eardrums. So it happens about once a week. My wife has noticed that I get short tempered if I don't get to play often enough and under the right circumstances.
Becoming proficient at playing guitar did not come easy for me. It took 15 years before I was really comfortable anywhere on the neck and able to forget about the mechanics and just feel my way around. I have a friend who asked me to show him a few things. Then, two weeks later, a few more things. He would ask technical questions about music, and playing guitar at work. After about 10 months, he brought his guitar to work and played for me, and he was better in ten months than I was in ten years. Really. He was a natural; I wasn't. I hate him.

Troy: Will you describe your most memorable musical performance and what made it your favorite?
Steve: Wow. I think it was my senior year in high school. We learned a melodic instrumental song (Santana) and I played it with a full band in a school concert. It was pretty much a guitar solo through the whole song. Very complex, but we NAILED it. None of my friends were there, but my hero, the lead guitarist in a local band, was there and he was really impressed. I felt ten feet tall.
Aside from that, I have played upwards of 400 gigs, with crowds ranging from one to 2000 people, and every one was memorable and my favorite. There is something about playing live that is addicting. I really miss it.

Troy: Will you encourage your daughters to play musical instruments and do you hope to perform with them someday?
Steve: Yes I do encourage them. I think I will wait until they're a bit older and more coordinated before I get them instruments. But I try to influence them to learn and love music now. I think you have to love it and want it and be addicted to the feeling of it, and experience the power of it before you really have the courage to own it.
And I think that I could never achieve anything greater than to be able to make music with my daughters, someday.

Libertarian Socialists? HUH?

So, my wife steers me to this jackass on myspace who says he is a "Libertarian Socialist" and has this big manifesto outlining his philosophy. This guy is the best example of pro-creation gone awry and his parents should be flogged for unleashing this nincompoop upon the rest of the world, but Jennifer is feeling like maybe I should try to help him understand the folly of his pseudo-philosophising. So, as an exercise in futility, I responded thusly:

Wow...The lack of understanding of human nature and basic economic principles is astounding! This mindless drivel would be laughable if I thought it was just you that thought this way. Knowing, as I do, that there are millions of people that hold such jack-asstic opinions makes me skeptical about the future of the human race.
You understand nothing about Libertarianism. What you describe is called SOCIALISM. Do you think adding the word Libertarian as an adjective will make it more palatable? Like sprinkling sugar on a dog turd? What have you been reading? Who have you been listening to? Don't be such a tool. I know you're young, but don't let people steer you around like a pawn.
Tell you what...I'm gonna do you a favor...Read *everything* on this page, now. Tonight. It's an archive of the weekly columns of Walter Williams; a black man and professor of economics and a true Libertarian. At the very least, you'll understand more about capitalism and economics and the function of morality in a free society.

Socialism, in any of its many forms, is force. The group forces the individual to act in the best interests of the group. The Individual exists only for the benefit of the group, and his every resource, even his very body and mind, are the property of the group, to be used, abused, even disposed of in any manner the group sees fit.

Libertarianism recognizes that the group exists only for the benefit of the individual. There *is* no group benefit if even one individual suffers. And if the group fails the individual, the group ceases to exist. The hope here, for humanity, is not for a utopian shangri-la, with everyone fat and happy, sitting around a campfire humming "Imagine" by John Lennon. It is for *every* human being to be free to pursue his own happiness, by his own definition of the idea, at his own pace. It is then that we will begin to realize that we are most happy when we act charitably towards our neighbors and work hard to build a safer tomorrow for our children. That is a happiness worth pursuing.

You should put down the Nietche, Marx, Chomsky and Nader and read some Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, and Mortimer Adler. Especially Mortimer Adler; He will teach you *how* to think. Then maybe you can begin to know *what* to think.

Tragically, he has it set so he must approve/deny all responses to his blog, and I'm betting he won't approve mine. What a waste...